Please briefly describe the judicial system in the United States.

He Jiahong, Doctoral Supervisor of Law School of Renmin University of China.

American Judicial System (I) —— Historical Origin of American Judicial System

Compared with many ancient civilizations in the world, America is a young country. Since 1776 and 13 North American colonies declared their independence, the United States has only gone through more than 200 years. Even if it can be traced back to 1620 when may flower landed in Plymouth or 1607 when British immigrants established the first colony in Jamestown, the history of the United States is only 400 years.

With the stability of life and the growth of population in colonial areas, people gradually realize that maintaining normal social life order cannot be separated from judicial institutions. Jamestown immigrants established the first court in North America in 16 19 to hear all kinds of civil disputes and criminal cases. Later, other colonies followed suit. These courts were nominally set up by the king of England, but in fact they were set up by local residents. Judges are concurrently appointed by the colonial chief executive or elected by local residents.

In the early criminal trials, the North American colonial courts generally adopted the accusation litigation system, that is, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit, the defendant defended, and the judge examined the evidence of both sides and made a judgment. Prosecutors can be victims or their relatives and friends, or local officials such as police and magistrates, but these officials will also take the defendants to court in their own names. This system is similar to the "private prosecution" system in Britain at that time.

But not long after, the colonial criminal prosecution system deviated from the British "private prosecution" and gradually turned to the public prosecution system. In this evolution process, the right of prosecution first expanded from the victim to the ordinary people, that is, citizens who have nothing to do with the case can also exercise the right of prosecution, and some colonial areas began to convene local residents' representatives to review the case before prosecuting major criminal cases; Later, grand juries and prosecutors specializing in criminal prosecution appeared.

1635, Massachusetts established the first grand jury in North American colonies, with the purpose of preventing residents or officials from abusing procuratorial power. 164 1 year, Virginia also established a grand jury. The basic function of the grand jury is to investigate criminal charges and decide whether to submit the case to trial. 1643, Virginia Colony appointed the first attorney general in American history. As the representative of the British king in the colony, the attorney general's main duty is to provide legal advice in court trials and safeguard the interests of the king. Subsequently, other colonies also set up prosecutors one after another, and some of them had clear criminal procuratorial functions. For example, Maryland established the Attorney General in 1666, whose duty is to submit criminal indictments to the grand jury and attend the trial of criminal cases as an adviser to the governor.

Although Britain also has an attorney general, the development of colonial procuratorial system soon surpassed the British model because there are more diverse legal and cultural traditions here. For example, in the middle of the17th century, the population structure of new york (then called "New Holland") was very complicated, including Dutch, French, British, German, Danish and so on. Since the Dutch first settled there and ruled for decades, the legal system in this area is based on the Dutch tradition. 1653, a colonial court based on Dutch courts was established in this region, which was composed of 1 chief judge, 3 judges and 1 judicial personnel. The judge's main duty is to prosecute in the trial of criminal cases, so he is actually one of the earliest district prosecutors in North America. 1664, after Britain gained jurisdiction over new york colony, its chief executive Richard? Nichols began to revise the local legal system. However, he did not completely deny the Dutch legal system, but gradually revised it to integrate the English common law with the Dutch legal tradition. Although the magistrate originally located in the court was abolished, its public prosecution function was inherited by the traditional British magistrate.

The establishment of county-level government prosecutors in North American colonies marked the formation of local procuratorial system. In this regard, the Connecticut colony is a pioneer. 1662, Connecticut took the lead in setting up a county prosecutor to prosecute criminal cases. 1704, Connecticut became the first colony in North America to explicitly establish a public prosecution system. According to its law, county prosecutors have the right to prosecute all criminal cases on behalf of the local government and people, regardless of whether the victims and their relatives file charges.

This "Connecticut model" was soon followed by other colonies.

Because the attorney general of the colony is the representative of the British government and the county attorney is a local appointed official, it is inevitable that there will be frequent conflicts of authority between them. For example, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, appointed a district attorney at 1686 to be responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases. Soon after, the attorney general appointed by the governor of Pennsylvania appointed an acting attorney general to each county in the colony, who was also responsible for criminal prosecution in each county. County prosecutors and acting attorneys-general often have conflicts in exercising the right of public prosecution. However, local decentralization and local autonomy represent the development trend of North American colonies, so local authorities gradually gained the upper hand in the dispute between local and "central" public prosecution rights. On the one hand, the status of county prosecutors has been consolidated one after another; On the other hand, some acting attorneys-general also broke away from the control of colonial attorneys-general in different ways and became local officials.

At the beginning of the founding of the United States of America, the federal president needed a legal adviser to help him deal with various legal affairs. 1789, the first congress passed a bill authorizing the president to appoint a federal attorney general. Its powers include: prosecuting criminal cases tried by the Federal Supreme Court; Participate in civil litigation to which the federal government may become a party; To provide advice on legal issues at the request of the Federal President or heads of ministries.

1789 Judicial Act provides for the establishment of a federal district attorney. The district attorney is appointed by the president. They are responsible for prosecuting crimes that should be under the jurisdiction of federal courts and enjoy almost unlimited independent public prosecution rights in their own jurisdictions. Although the federal attorney general is regarded as the chief legal officer and chief prosecutor of the federal government, he has no subordinate relationship with the federal prosecutors in various regions. He has no right to interfere in the affairs of the district attorney.

In fact, the Federal Minister of Justice has long been a part-time government legal adviser. He can practice his own private law, and was not required to set up an office in the federal government until 1853.

At this point, the procuratorial system that best represents the characteristics of the American judicial system has taken shape.

American Judicial System (II) —— American Judiciary

There are 52 independent court systems in the United States, including the federal court system, the capital district of Columbia court system and 50 state court systems. Although the federal supreme court is the highest court in the United States, its judgments are binding on all kinds of courts in the United States, but the federal court system is not higher than the state court system, and there is no jurisdiction or subordinate relationship between them. In a sense, the court system in the United States is a "dual track system", with federal courts on one side and state courts on the other, both of which run in parallel until the Federal Supreme Court.

Federal courts and state courts have different types of cases. In the criminal field, federal courts try criminal cases that violate federal laws; In the civil field, federal courts try cases in which the United States is a party, involving "federal issues" and jurisdictional disputes between citizens of different States. The jurisdiction of state courts is relatively extensive. According to the provisions of the Constitution of the United States, any law that does not explicitly grant jurisdiction to federal courts belongs to state courts. In fact, most criminal cases and civil cases are tried by state courts. In California and other big States, the total number of cases tried by state courts can be as high as 1 million each year; The total number of cases heard by all federal courts in a year is only a quarter.

The court system of the Federation and most states adopts the "three-level model", and only a few states such as Nebraska adopt the two-level model. The so-called "three-level model" means that the courts are set up in three levels, including the grass-roots trial court, the middle-level appeal court and the top-level Supreme Court. Of course, the names of courts used in different states are also different. For example, in New York State, the grass-roots court of first instance is called the "Supreme Court"; The Intermediate Court of Appeal is called the "Supreme Court Appeals Division"; The actual Supreme Court is called the "Court of Appeal".

The "three-level model" does not mean the "three-instance final adjudication system". In fact, the Federation and most States adopt the "two-instance final adjudication system", that is, litigants have only one right of appeal after losing in the first instance. Theoretically, the parties may have two or even three appeals after the first trial. However, it is the right of the parties to request the court of appeal for retrial, not the right of the parties to request the Supreme Court for retrial, but the power of the Supreme Court. Although there is only one word difference between "right" and "power", their meanings are far from each other. In the former case, the court must accept the appeal of the parties; In the latter case, the court has no obligation to accept it, only when the court thinks it is necessary. If the parties wish to get the latter's appeal trial, they must obtain the court's "leave to appeal" or "writ of certiorari".

Of course, there are also some states whose laws clearly stipulate the "three-instance final adjudication system", or stipulate that the "three-instance final adjudication system" should be adopted in some types of cases. For example, in New York State, the parties in most cases have the right to appeal twice; In California, the law stipulates that the "three-instance final judgment system" is applicable to all cases in which the defendant is sentenced to death. In addition, some parties who lose in the state court system can also get the "fourth trial" of the Federal Supreme Court. Of course, what cases can get this special attention is generally not clearly stipulated in the law, and the decision is in the hands of nine judges of the Federal Supreme Court.

Whether it is a federal court or a state court, whether it is an ordinary court or a special court, it can be divided into two types according to different basic functions: one is a court of first instance, and the other is an appeal court. Generally speaking, the division of responsibilities between the court of first instance and the court of appeal in the United States is clear and strict. The court of first instance is only responsible for the first instance; The Court of Appeal is only responsible for hearing appeals. However, the Federal Supreme Court and some state supreme courts are exceptions. They hear appeals and some cases of first instance.

The judicial courts in the United States generally adopt the "single judge system", that is, only one judge presides over the trial and makes a judgment. The court of appeal adopts the "collegiate system", that is, several judges try cases together and make judgments. The composition of the collegiate bench is different. Generally speaking, the collegial panel of the Intermediate Court of Appeal consists of three judges; The collegial panel of the Supreme Court consists of five, seven or nine judges. In addition, according to the type of case and the wishes of the parties, the trial of the court can be in two forms: collegiate bench trial and jury trial.

What deserves special introduction here is the Supreme Court of the United States, that is, the Federal Supreme Court. It is the only court directly established by the federal constitution in the United States. The court is located in the capital, Washington. Its functions include hearing appeals from the federal court of appeal, hearing appeals from the state supreme court (if it involves federal legal issues), and hearing first-instance cases that can be directly heard by the Constitution. The number of first-instance cases is very small, less than one tenth of the total number of trial cases. Cases of first instance often involve disputes between two or more States, mostly related to land boundaries, such as land ownership disputes caused by river diversion; There are also some cases in which two or more states dispute the property tax rights of billionaires.

There are two ways for the Supreme Court to accept appeals: one is the right of appeal; The second is to adjust the order of volume. There are few cases in which the parties have the right to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. According to the law, only when the judgment of the federal district court is made by a special collegial panel composed of three judges, the parties have the right to appeal to the federal Supreme Court. As mentioned above, the trial court generally adopts an independent trial system, but a collegial panel can be formed in two cases. The first is to re-divide the legislative districts; In one case, Congress wants to resolve constitutional disputes quickly. In the case No.65438-0990 "United States v. Eichmann", in order to quickly answer the question of whether the law of Congress prohibiting the illegal burning of the American flag is unconstitutional, the federal district court adopted a collegiate bench trial. The collegial panel consists of two federal district court judges and one federal appeals court judge.

Shifting orders are the main way for the Supreme Court to accept appeals. In order to obtain the transfer order of the Supreme Court, the litigants must first file an application, and then the judge will vote whether to accept it or not. The Supreme Court receives about 6,000 applications for transfer orders every year, but generally accepts no more than 200 applications. The Supreme Court believes that its main duty is not to correct the wrong judgments of lower courts, but to safeguard the federal legal system in a broader sense. Therefore, the cases in which it issues transfer orders often involve different interpretations of federal laws by different courts. For example, two federal appeals courts have contradictory interpretations of a law; The federal court of appeal and the state supreme court have conflicting interpretations of the law; Or the interpretation of a law by the Federal Court of Appeal is inconsistent with the previous judgment of the Federal Supreme Court.

Since the establishment of the Supreme Court of the United States, the number of justices has been variable, with a minimum of five and a maximum of 10. At present, it consists of nine judges, one of whom is the Chief Justice. When hearing cases, the Supreme Court consists of nine judges. The nine justices, including the Chief Justice, are mainly responsible for trial, and do not undertake the administrative functions familiar to the President of China Court.

American Judicial System (III) —— American Procuratorial Organs

The procuratorial system in the United States has the characteristics of "three levels, two tracks and mutual independence". The so-called "three levels" means that the procuratorial organs in the United States are built on the federal, state and town governments. The so-called "dual track system" means that the procuratorial functions of the United States are exercised by the federal procuratorial system and the local procuratorial system respectively, and they are parallel and do not interfere with each other. The procuratorial organs in the United States are independent of each other regardless of their "level".

The federal prosecution system in the United States consists of the prosecution department of the federal department of justice and the federal district attorney's office. Its main function is to investigate and prosecute violations of federal laws, and to participate in litigation on behalf of the federal government in civil cases to which the Federation is a party. The heads of the federal prosecution system are the Federal Attorney General and the Federal Minister of Justice. Although he is the chief prosecutor of the federal government, he only participates in litigation on behalf of the federal government in very few cases, and is limited to cases heard by the Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Court of Appeal. Its main responsibility is to formulate the procuratorial policy of the federal government and lead the work of the Ministry of Justice. In fact, most departments of the Ministry of Justice have nothing to do with procuratorial work, and only a few departments have procuratorial functions, the most important of which is the criminal department. There are 95 federal jurisdictions in the United States, and each district has a federal prosecutor's office, which is composed of a federal prosecutor and several assistant prosecutors. They are the main force of federal prosecution. In general, they decide to investigate and prosecute on their own, but they must abide by the principles and policies formulated by the Federal Minister of Justice. In some special cases, such as cases involving national security and major corruption cases of government officials, they often seek the support and help of the Criminal Division of the Ministry of Justice. Only with the approval of the federal attorney general or the assistant attorney general in charge of the work of the Criminal Division can they initiate public prosecution.

The local procuratorial system in the United States is dominated by state procuratorial organs, which are composed of state attorneys general and institutions headed by state attorneys. State attorneys-general are nominally the chief prosecutors of a state, but most of them do not undertake the public prosecution function and rarely interfere in the specific affairs of the prosecutor's office. In most countries, state attorneys general and state prosecutors maintain the relationship of consultation and guidance. The jurisdiction of state prosecutors is generally based on counties. They are the chief prosecutors of criminal cases in each state and are usually regarded as law enforcement administrators in their counties. Generally speaking, local police organs will accept the guidance and even command of prosecutors in criminal case investigation.

The town procuratorial organ is a local procuratorial organ independent of the state procuratorial system, but not all towns in the United States have their own procuratorial organs. In some states, there are no prosecutors in towns, and all procuratorial work belongs to state prosecutors. In those towns with their own procuratorial organs, procuratorial officials have no right to prosecute violations of federal or state laws, but can only investigate and prosecute violations of municipal laws and regulations. These illegal acts are called "minor crimes" and are mostly related to gambling, alcoholism, traffic and public health. However, it is not uncommon for the provisions on "misdemeanor" in municipal decrees to overlap with those in state laws.

Diversification is the basic feature of American procuratorial organs. There are three reasons: First, the functions and powers of procuratorial organs are different, or the types of cases they are responsible for are different, so the setting of their functional departments is also different. For example, the federal procuratorial organs and state procuratorial organs are responsible for investigating and prosecuting crimes against federal laws and crimes against state laws respectively, so when setting up their functional departments, they must be based on the types of cases they are responsible for. Second, the size of procuratorial organs is different, or the number of their staff is different. For example, the prosecutor's office in Cook County, Illinois (including Chicago) has as many as 900 employees; Banna County, Nebraska, has only 1 staff. There are 230 "assistant inspectors" under the Chicago city prosecutor; There are only three "assistants" in the prosecutor in Evanston, which is adjacent to it. The prosecutor himself also serves as the prosecutor in two other cities. Third, the professional division of labor of procuratorial organs is different, or the degree of specialization of their personnel is different. Undoubtedly, it is difficult for small procuratorial organs to have a formal professional division of labor, so this division of labor is mainly in large and medium-sized procuratorial organs. There are two basic modes of specialized division of labor: one is vertical division of labor or procedural division of labor; One is based on horizontal division of labor or case division. Vertical division of labor is like the division of labor on the production "assembly line" in a factory. According to the stages of working procedures, prosecutors are responsible for the procuratorial work in the stages of case acceptance, pre-trial hearing, grand jury investigation, trial and appeal. The horizontal division of labor is based on the types of cases. This division of labor can have different levels: first, criminal cases handled by the Attorney General's Office can be divided into two categories: felony and misdemeanor; Secondly, felonies and misdemeanors can be divided into crimes against the person and crimes against property; Third, crimes against people and property can be divided into homicide, rape, robbery, theft and fraud, and each crime can be further subdivided. At present, large and medium-sized procuratorial organs in the United States mostly adopt the mode of combining vertical division of labor with horizontal division of labor, but the specific situation is different. The diversification of procuratorial organs is conducive to giving full play to the professional ability and enthusiasm of various prosecutors, making the internal structure of different procuratorial organs better adapt to the nature and workload of the organs, and preventing the phenomenon of overstaffing and uneven distribution of work. However, the diversity of procuratorial organs also hinders the coordinated development of the whole procuratorial system to a great extent. Under this system, it is difficult for people to formulate effective operating standards of the whole system and improve the efficiency of the whole system. Because procuratorial organs play an important role in social law enforcement activities, this unbalanced development of American procuratorial system has also brought negative effects to society. In recent years, some American scholars have been calling for changing the disunity of the procuratorial system, and some regions have also made reform efforts. However, decentralization is still the basic feature of American local procuratorial system.

American Judicial System (IV) —— American Police Department

More than 500,000 police officers in the United States belong to nearly 20,000 independent police agencies, with an average of less than 30 police officers in each police agency. However, some large police agencies have tens of thousands of employees, so in fact, many police agencies in the United States have employees less than 10, and the smallest one is the police chief 1, which is really a "one-man army". However, these police organs, big or small, are independent of each other and enjoy independent law enforcement power within their jurisdiction. The police organs in the United States are subordinate to the federal, state, county and town governments respectively.

American federal agencies with police functions are often called law enforcement agencies. The main law enforcement agencies are subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Interior and the Ministry of National Defense. Among them, there are six under the Ministry of Justice, namely the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Bureau, the Prison Administration, the Federal Court Administration and the Federal Bailiff. The Ministry of Finance consists of five departments, namely, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Secret Service, the Federal Customs Service and the Inspector General's Office. There are five departments under the Ministry of the Interior, namely, the Law Enforcement Division of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Forest Police of the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Police and the Inspector General's Office. There are eight departments under the Ministry of National Defense, namely General Audit Office, National Defense Investigation Bureau, War Department Crime Investigation Bureau, War Department Intelligence and Security Bureau, War Department Gendarmerie Corps, Naval Investigation Bureau, Air Force Security Police Department and Special Investigation Department. In addition, there is the postal inspection office of the Federal Postal Administration and so on.

States in the United States have different legal traditions and current situations, so their police organs have different systems. From the name, some are called state police, some are called state highway patrol team, some are called state law enforcement bureau, and some are called state public security bureau. This inconsistency in names also reflects the characteristics of the decentralized police system in the United States to some extent.

There are three main modes of state police in the United States. The first is the patrol mode, or the patrol police agency. The main duties of such national police organs are to implement national traffic laws and regulations, investigate and prevent traffic accidents, correct and punish traffic violations and ensure road safety. California's highway patrol is a representative of this model. The second is the law enforcement mode, or law enforcement police organs. Such national police organs have full law enforcement responsibilities, including criminal investigation, maintaining public order, enforcing laws and regulations and highway patrol. The Illinois Police Department is the representative of this model. The third is the dual mode, or the patrol law enforcement mode. The national police is divided into two independent entities, one is responsible for road patrol and the other is responsible for general law enforcement. For example, the highway patrol in Florida is responsible for patrolling interstate highways and investigating minor criminal cases on interstate highways; The Florida law enforcement agency is responsible for general law enforcement, including investigating serious criminal cases on state highways.

In addition to the above three types of state police agencies, there are also some smaller state police agencies and law enforcement agencies specializing in a certain field in various States of the United States. The former, such as state park police station and state university police station; The latter, such as National Medical Products Administration. In theory, state law enforcement agencies have the right to carry out police affairs throughout the state. However, in practice, the state police generally avoid interfering with the jurisdiction of the town police station and concentrate their law enforcement forces on the areas and state highways where no autonomous police stations have been set up. Of course, because state police departments often have experienced investigators and advanced instruments and equipment, they often provide services such as difficult case investigation, court scientific appraisal, information retrieval and various professional training to smaller police departments in the state.

There are about 3,000 county-level law enforcement agencies in the United States. These law enforcement agencies mainly have two modes: one is the mode of county judicial bureau; One is the county police station model. The former is the traditional model of county-level law enforcement agencies in the United States, and the county magistrate is the county magistrate, who is responsible for the police affairs of the county. At present, most counties in the United States adopt this model. The latter is a relatively new model of county-level law enforcement organs. The county police chief is the county law enforcement officer and is responsible for the police affairs in the county. At present, the United States only adopts this model in some counties and cities, such as Jacksonville County, Florida. The system of this county police station is the same as that of ordinary town police stations.

According to the size of law enforcement power, the model of county judicial bureau can be divided into two types: first, the authority of county judicial administrators is limited to managing prisons and maintaining court order, that is, only the functions of prison guards and bailiffs; Second, the authority of the county order includes criminal investigation, maintaining public order and traffic management, that is, it has all law enforcement functions. In the second case, there are many special police stations under the county magistrate, and some local officials also serve as police chiefs.

Town police are the most important force of American police, accounting for about three-quarters of the total number of American police. Cities in the United States generally have their own independent police organs, or "autonomous police organs." However, the size of the police organs in these towns varies greatly. For example, Cook County has 12 1 town police station and16,000 police officers. Among them, the Chicago Police Department has nearly 1.3 million police officers; In addition, there are 5 police stations with more than 100 people; Most police stations have only a few dozen people or a few people.

In recent years, some American scholars have called for strengthening cooperation between law enforcement agencies, improving the unity of law enforcement activities, and even suggested merging police agencies. They pointed out that the "fragmented" police system is not conducive to criminal investigation. On the one hand, those "microscopic" police organs simply can't carry out effective investigation and solve cases; On the other hand, this "separatist" state of police force is also an obstacle to criminal investigation. Especially when dealing with cross-regional crimes, the investigation work lacks unified command, and sometimes there is even "negative competition" between police organs. They put forward the idea of replacing the current local police system with three organically linked systems: "city police", "city police" and "village police". However, this proposal to merge the police departments has met with opposition from many Americans, especially local governments and local police stations. They believe that the practice of merging police organs violates the traditional American principles of "autonomous police" and "local residents have the right to choose their policing methods"; It is not conducive to carrying out police work according to local characteristics, and will harm the interests of local governments and local residents. In a word, decentralization is a tradition of American society and a basic feature of the current legal system in the United States, and it is very difficult to change it.

American Judicial System (V) —— Respected American Judges

There are about 700 federal judges and more than 27,000 state judges in the United States. Federal judges are appointed by the President and must be approved by the Federal Senate. In addition, when the president puts forward the list of candidates for federal judges, he will generally consult the American Bar Association, although this is not a necessary procedure required by law. Federal judges in the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the District Court are appointed for life, while federal judges in specialized courts are appointed for life. State judges are generally directly elected by local residents. This practice is in line with the social lifestyle of small towns in the United States before 19 century. However, with the expansion of cities and the increase of population mobility, the public has gradually lost interest in the election of judges, and they often know little about the candidates for judges. In this way, universal suffrage for judges has lost its practical significance, and the election results are easily controlled by party leaders. Judges in all states have tenure, not tenure. The term of office of state trial court judges is 4 years, 6 years or 8 years; The term of office of the State Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court is 6 years, 8 years or 10 years.

Life tenure does not mean that a judge must serve until the last moment of his life. A judge may retire for health reasons or resign for other reasons, but these must be put forward by the judge himself. The only way to remove a federal judge is impeachment. According to the US Constitution, the reason for impeaching federal government officials, including judges, is that they have committed "treason, bribery, or other serious crimes and misdemeanors". To impeach a federal judge, the Federal House of Representatives must first vote on impeachment charges, and then the Federal Senate will try him. The trial was presided over by the Chief Justice of the Federal Supreme Court, and all senators heard and voted. If the Senate finds him guilty, the judge will be dismissed; If the Senate finds him innocent, the judge will remain in office. Impeachment is a very severe disciplinary measure, so it is rarely used. Since the founding of the United States, only nine federal judges have been impeached, and only four of them have been convicted by the Senate. The impeachment methods and procedures of local judges in each state are basically the same as those of federal judges.

/kloc-before the 0 th and 9 th centuries, American judges were generally not members of the bar association, and even never received formal legal training. At that time, most of the people who presided over the court trial activities were "lay judges" who did not understand the law. Nowadays, the situation of American judges has changed a lot. Except for a few grass-roots courts that try minor crimes, judges in other courts must be qualified as lawyers. In fact, American judges generally have many years of practical experience as lawyers. In this sense, American judges belong to "lawyer judges".

Because law schools in the United States belong to "post-undergraduate" education, students have to engage in legal practice for a certain number of years after graduation, including government work such as prosecutors and public defenders, and finally they can sit on the bench, so judges in the United States are generally over 40 years old. Preference for adult judges is an American tradition, which also reflects the American judicial concept. Being a qualified judge requires not only systematic legal knowledge, but also rich litigation experience and the ability to deal with complex problems. In addition, rich life experience and experience is also an important guarantee for the fair and proper exercise of judicial power. Only mature people can make a "mature" judgment, and it is often difficult for young people who are just in their infancy to shoulder this heavy responsibility.

American judges are "politically powerful" figures. Personally, they are either qualified to be elected as the Chief Executive or Legislative Council Members, or have the experience of actively participating in and organizing election activities as leaders or organizers of political parties. Especially those judges of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, they often spend more time on politics than on legal work. It is true that once they become judges, they can no longer participate in the political activities of political parties, which is the basic requirement of the principle of judicial independence. However, their political attitude before being appointed or elected will obviously affect their concept of presiding over judicial work. Therefore, some judges may be "enlightened" on basic issues such as the social function of the court, emphasizing the positive role of the court in safeguarding social justice and safeguarding human rights; Other judges may be "conservative" and insist that the court should not interfere or interfere with the activities of the legislature and the executive.

Although a judge cannot publicly declare that he supports the Party or the Democratic Party in judicial activities, his political inclination is open, at least semi-open, because his views on some major social issues are always expressed in his judgment opinions in a certain form, and his judgment opinions are open. Because of this, many experienced lawyers will carefully read the previous judgment of the judge in this case before litigation, understand his political inclination, and analyze its possible impact on this case, so as to better formulate litigation strategies.

American judges have a high